28 Comments - OneMan - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 2:57 pm: I voted it’s enough, even though I would be fine with term limits in general. Think that leadership limits, do both the legislative bodies and the parties good. - TinyDancer(FKASue) - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:06 pm: Why should someone who’s doing a really great job have to quit? I oppose term limits. The problem is unlimited dark money and gerrymandered districts - a problem which must be fixed in ALL states. - Demoralized - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:06 pm: I oppose all legislative term limits. That’s why we have elections. - Norseman - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:07 pm: Enough. I’ve been historically opposed to term limits, although the complete meltdown of my former party is making me seriously reconsider that position. The newer lawmakers are more interested in gaslighting than legislating. - Responsa - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:11 pm: This is an issue on which I admit I have changed my mind over time. I used to firmly believe that the voters should, and would “take care of it” if they grew tired of a legislator’s length of service or other issues. But I am now much more aware of the power of incumbency, the disengagement of voters in general, and how difficult it is to dislodge a politician once they are in office and have a patronage organization to support them. I’ve come to believe reasonable term limits would at least partly allow all offices to be refreshed more easily. - Flyer - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:21 pm: When people talk of term limits the reference is often Speaker Madigan. The limits aren’t needed. Check the roles of the senate and house ten years ago and compare it to today. I’ll bet the turnover is 75% or more. - Pundent - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:24 pm: I voted that it’s enough. The argument for term limits usually comes from the minority party and is somehow seen as a way to level the playing field rather than competing on the basis of ideas and policies. - Anyone Remember - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:32 pm: Oppose all term limits. Lurking beneath the surface of all term limit “crusades” is a mean spirited effort to politically defenestrate those that empower marginalized groups (Mike Madigan, Ohio’s Vern Riffe, Maine’s John L. Martin), powerful people who belong to marginalized groups (Willie Brown, Nebraska’s Ernie Chambers), or to scare voters about such people (US GOP House 2006 campaign mentioning committee chair term limits related to James Clyburn and Barney Frank). - West Sider - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:37 pm: We already have term limit- that is why we have to hold elections. I have no problem with a body deciding rules for its’ own behavior and leadership- I do have a problem with being told who can and cannot represent me. That is, at its heart a fundamentally undemocratic idea. - NotMe - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:37 pm: Enough. The turnover among rank and file members as often calculated and tweeted by John Amdor shows that elections are doing that job just fine. - OldSmoky2 - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:39 pm: Elections are the only term limits needed. - Collinsville Kevin - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:42 pm: Voted opposed to all, reluctantly. But I’ve seen how term limits have worked in Missouri, and the answer is, not well. - Elginite - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 3:55 pm: I voted it’s enough. We already have term limits for members of the General Assembly, they’re called elections. If the people of a certain legislative district want the same person representing them for decades, that is their right in a representative democracy. Leadership term limits are obviously necessary, but term limits for every member of the General Assembly takes away the voters right to have someone they trust represent them. If you’re immediate reaction to my comment is that districts are gerrymandered, then your issue is map drawing. Adding term limits will not solve current issues, it will only create new ones. - JoanP - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:02 pm: In general, I oppose term limits. If a legislator’s constituents want her to continue in office, that’s their right. If they don’t, there are elections. I’m not as adamant in my opposition to term limiting leadership, but I am also not convinced that it’s necessary. - Actual Red - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:03 pm: I think it’s enough. I agree with others above that universal term limits are somewhat anti-democratic. It’s an artificial stop on who can and can’t be selected as a representative. On the other hand, I think it’s clear that overly entrenched politicians come with their own problems. And, since the leadership positions aren’t directly elected anyway, term limits don’t have the same issue. Pretty good compromise. - Candy Dogood - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:34 pm: Term limits are a terrible idea. The notion that our governing process would be improved by requiring those with the most experience and the most subject matter expertise resign is fundamentally flawed. Almost all of the reasons people provide for term limits would be best addressed by other policy and reforms and would most likely not be addressed by term limits. Term limits will also increase the influence of lobbyists and make it much more likely for legislation to be drafted by lobbyists and special interest groups rather than being shaped by experienced legislators. Removing the power of incumbency also creates more dependency on the ability to fund raise. In stead of having legislators that can forcefully stand for principles, we’ll have more legislators that are beholden to lobbyists and special interest, no matter how talented, no matter how popular, no matter how well liked, legislators will also need to be looking for a new job sooner than they otherwise would have. This idea that someone is going to be a better legislator because they’re new is just silly. I imagine most readers here can think of at least one representative or senator who has no business holding public office, yet here they are. Creating term limits for leadership positions likewise doesn’t actually address the Madigan problem since this law can also be changed by any individual who is ever able to concentrate as much power, influence, and direct control over the political process as Mike Madigan had. Term limits don’t fix things, they make things worse. A high rate of turnover doesn’t produce quality. Could you imagine the lunatics that would make up the GOP caucus right now if all of their races had an open primary? - Springfieldish - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:39 pm: I don’t burn down my house because I have squirrels in the attic, I just get rid of the squirrels. - The Professor - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 4:51 pm: I worked as a lobbyist for 37 years. I used to know every office holder. I retired about 10 years ago and today I would be surprised if I knew 10 people. We have term limits - it is called elections. - Froganon - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 5:06 pm: Voted enough. Term limits for elected officials solve nothing. Term limits weaken legislators and allow even more influence by business and other entrenched players. Elections are the best way to limit legislators terms. - Levois J - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 5:10 pm: I vote term limits for all legislators. You shouldn’t be able to serve for decades as Madigan has for example. And let me further call for special elections for state legislators when they resign their office especially. - Anyone Remember - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 6:14 pm: Levois J - Why are you trying to take away MY right to vote (ballot or write-in) for the non-felon of my choice? - Levois J - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 6:41 pm: Anyone Remember You’ll have the choice to vote for a non-felon of your choice as long as they’re not term limited - Third Reading - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 7:15 pm: If you think legislative term limits are a good idea, I would invite you to tune into a few days of the Missouri legislative session. I would observe that term limits makes some activity more brazen. - Oswego Willy - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 8:39 pm: Voted “It’s enough” The foolish see institutional knowledge as bad. The eyes know that when it’s only lobbyists and staff having institutional knowledge… that’s failing not only the body, but the institutions of both chambers but the state too. It’s enough, voted as such. - PublicServant - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 8:47 pm: Voted No term Limits at all. Removing a choice of a representative who they would otherwise vote for as their representative is a tool of minority rule. The enticement of a good job waiting for a term limited representative at Uline (or any other company) after he/she would just shift a vote on critical legislation to said firm, is the real reason why the GQP is pushing this. - Annonin' - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 9:09 pm: Mr/Ms #rd Reading is keeee rect. MO tossed two consecutive speakers who arived via term limits. Both were chasers - Pot calling kettle - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 10:47 pm: I favor term limits for the leadership positions, it’s too easy to accumulate power and then consolidate it and then hunker down. There were a lot of potentially good leaders in the House Dems who cycled out while Madigan became less of a leader and more of a stayer. (He still had his moments, but others would have been able to lead us through Rauner.) I do not favor term limits for legislators, but it would be good to have more competitive districts. - Yooper in Diaspora - Thursday, Apr 22, 21 @ 11:48 pm: Without a critical mass of knowledgeable, experienced legislators, lobbyists and special interest groups will set the agenda in ways that the legislators can’t readily assess, looking at issues from more than one point of view. Experience matters. That said, I’m fine with a rotation in the legislative leadership positions. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.